Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect • Hacker News Board

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#101

Post by bkor » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 8:43 AM UTC

pure-awesome wrote: post #79

I had a realization the last time we had a fire drill: It wasn't scheduled, so when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other for a few moments like "is the siren just on the fritz or should we walk out?" After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled outside. On the way, I noticed one of my coworkers in a fire marshal uniform, in the corridor, calling out for people to evacuate. I real…

> just give a random person a "uniform" (a whistle, a badge, a hat, or a vest, anything simple like that works) and tell them that when the alarm goes off, they are responsible for telling people to leave.

What an absolutely strange procedure! This as a fire marshal is not responsible for getting people out. People themselves are responsible to act. The fire marshal is a backup!

Here people (big building, multiple companies, etc) are told when they get hired that it's their responsibility to evacuate when the (standardized across Europe) evacuation sound goes off. Then trained people check floors to double check everyone is out, plus assist anyone having difficulty getting out. Anyone not cooperating will be reported.

This all relies on the attitude of the director of each company. Some take safety very seriously, some see it as a waste of time ("nothing will happen").. until eventually something happens.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#102

Post by bkor » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 8:53 AM UTC

ohazi wrote: post #85

pure-awesome wrote: post #79

I had a realization the last time we had a fire drill: It wasn't scheduled, so when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other for a few moments like "is the siren just on the fritz or should we walk out?" After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled outside. On the way, I noticed one of my coworkers in a fire marshal uniform, in the corridor, calling out for people to evacuate. I real…

Relatedly, if you ever need to delegate something like a 911 call, you're supposed to single out a person and tell them, specifically "you, go dial 911" rather than shouting "someone call 911!" Apparently this makes it far more likely to actually happen.

Interestingly the standard procedure in The Netherlands for medical emergencies (the ones where you find someone on the ground) changed to actually calling yourself over asking a random bystander. Aside from calling you should also put the phone on handsfree and lay it next to the person (on the ground).

This as 112 (911) asks loads of questions. Age of the person, conscious yes/no, what does the skin look like, feel like, etc. If it's about CPR it'll be way easier of course... but procedure is also to call asap. Meaning right after you find the person on the ground.. not after you checked.

I had to call 112 this week. In practice things are often different than any procedure ;)

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#103

Post by anonymousDan » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 8:55 AM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #50

This is all anecdata, but the article and the study are totally contrary to my experience. Over the years I've witnessed a variety of incidents where bystanders did nothing -- however once someone makes the first move, it seems to become easier for others to lend a hand. When I was a teen, I dated someone who was a red cross volunteer, which prompted me to take a couple of first aid classes. This has easily been the…

I think the most amazing/hilarious example I've seen of one person starting something by making the first move is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8z7f7a2Pk

:)

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#104

Post by Neil44 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 9:05 AM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #50

This is all anecdata, but the article and the study are totally contrary to my experience. Over the years I've witnessed a variety of incidents where bystanders did nothing -- however once someone makes the first move, it seems to become easier for others to lend a hand. When I was a teen, I dated someone who was a red cross volunteer, which prompted me to take a couple of first aid classes. This has easily been the…

I think confusion is a big part of it. You often don't see the start of an incident, you're lost in your own business before your attention is drawn to something that might be nearly over before you even look at it. Who are these people? Is someone just messing around or is this real? Do they know each other? It takes us a long time generally to figure out how to respond to the truly unexpected.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#105

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 9:25 AM UTC

NegatioN wrote: post #59

feanaro wrote: post #40

Two things: - Cameras may have caused the Hawthorne effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect - The article (the news one, haven't read the original yet) talks about the increase of probability that some bystander will act, with increase in group size. The bystander effect study talks about the decrease of probability that a particular individual will act, with decrease in group size. These two things ma…

We should also consider that if there's a larger crowd of bystanders, an individual will feel more sure that others will help them as long as they act. "Safety in numbers" so to say.

My first experience I put down to bystander effect:

I was giving first-aid to a guy with severe lacerations to his hand/arm and didn't want to leave him (partially panic on my behalf) - in a UK city, albeit a side-road, with shops and people walking past - but needed to call for an ambulance.

Nobody would stop and help:

"Help! I need you to call an ambulance."

and people just carried on walking.

In the end I was able to makeshift a bandage with some clothing and leave the guy sitting on the floor long enough to use the phone in the shop I was working at.

The ambulance, despite having the address and business name, drove past and I ended up running after it down the street ... overall an awful experience and very eye-opening.

My takeaway is that I'd give up much sooner seeking help from others, depressing as that is, and - contrary to my first-aid training - leave the patient and call an ambulance myself.

Aside: I wonder if there's a villager/townie effect too?

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#106

Post by namdnay » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 9:31 AM UTC

ohazi wrote: post #85

pure-awesome wrote: post #79

I had a realization the last time we had a fire drill: It wasn't scheduled, so when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other for a few moments like "is the siren just on the fritz or should we walk out?" After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled outside. On the way, I noticed one of my coworkers in a fire marshal uniform, in the corridor, calling out for people to evacuate. I real…

Relatedly, if you ever need to delegate something like a 911 call, you're supposed to single out a person and tell them, specifically "you, go dial 911" rather than shouting "someone call 911!" Apparently this makes it far more likely to actually happen.

Same thing at work :)

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#107

Post by GordonS » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 9:43 AM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #50

This is all anecdata, but the article and the study are totally contrary to my experience. Over the years I've witnessed a variety of incidents where bystanders did nothing -- however once someone makes the first move, it seems to become easier for others to lend a hand. When I was a teen, I dated someone who was a red cross volunteer, which prompted me to take a couple of first aid classes. This has easily been the…

> several cases of guys beating on their wives in public, two drunken attempted robberies, a variety of (literal) gay bashing, random subway violence, and oodles of shit I can't recall. The latest was two weeks ago: a hit and run with a teen victim with a very nasty headwound.

Wow, I had no idea Belgium was so violent!

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#108

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 9:52 AM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #50

This is all anecdata, but the article and the study are totally contrary to my experience. Over the years I've witnessed a variety of incidents where bystanders did nothing -- however once someone makes the first move, it seems to become easier for others to lend a hand. When I was a teen, I dated someone who was a red cross volunteer, which prompted me to take a couple of first aid classes. This has easily been the…

Even people whose job it is to help will sit and watch stuff happen - I stopped an RNLI boat from floating away on an incoming tide, a lifeguard sat in their van and watched. One other person did come over to see if I needed help.

I think in that situation the two boat riders who had temporarily abandoned the boat - and who arrived back 5mins later - were viewed by this lifeguard as 'responsible' and they didn't want to step on their toes. But that boat, which they were using for an active search at the time, would have floated off.

What was most crazy to me was that they didn't thank me, they just sat in their van still.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#109

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 10:00 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #39

mcqueenjordan wrote: post #37

I know this is an "armchair academic" comment, but I wonder if `places that are likely to have active surveillance` strongly intersects with `places that the bystander effect is less likely`. In other words, I wonder if there's a crippling selection bias. The reason I think this is possible is because I'm way more likely to help someone if I don't think I'm endangering myself by doing so. Areas that are actively surv…

Surveillance cameras do not correlate with "not in danger". It's not like people are watching these things in real time and jumping to action when they see something. After all, if that were the case, then there'd be no reason for bystanders to even get involved in these incidents at all.

UK cities have surveillance cameras with control rooms where people sit and watch, real time, and take action. Some have audio connections to allow voice communication too.

Or they did a few years ago, it's possible the police budget restrictions from "austerity" have put an end to it, but AFAIK it still happens.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#110

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 10:08 AM UTC

usaphp wrote: post #62

archgoon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also; awareness of the bystander effect may have led to increased pro-activeness. This is really something that would need to have data going further back to figure out if the original effect existed. See another post in this thread where someone has recieved specific training to counteract the bystander effect.

I doubt that average Joe would know anything about bystander effect studies.

I guess you're in USA, I'd expect it to be a large minority in UK - everyone who ever did a first-aid course should know about it for starters.